Lol, thanks skyblade for the correction - you forgot to say i was right about G.W. too.
Bipper
Printable View
Lol, thanks skyblade for the correction - you forgot to say i was right about G.W. too.
Bipper
now hang on a second. firearms can be a form of recreation. hunting and other varoius shooting sports (including competitions) are quite safe. explosives on the other hand have no other use except for demolition. clearly you have a problem drawing a line between a recreation and blowing crap up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
You should have taken this to the warn button right away instead of modding the thread yourself. I think I already gave you a warning about that once, so I would think twice before doing it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
i can blow stuff up in my back garden.
i don't actually suffer from a physical disability. i have a coordination disorder that makes complex movement like speech and hand written difficult (as well as some sports). but if someone did break into my house there are lots of legal methods to defend myself.
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
there is appropiate force. i still have the right to defend myself.
That's exactly true. It's the initiation of force is what is outlawed and immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
You're supporting the right to bear arms.
no i'm not. firearms make death easier and more effecient. the right to defend yourself with appropiate force does not include firearms.
Even when the other person points one at your face?
Yes. It saves your life easier and more efficently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
When a criminal comes in with the intention to shoot you, see if your baseball bat will help you for long.
but the chances of a criminal having a gun are lower in my country. and if i really wanted to take him out i would use all acetone peroxide i should be allowed instead of a gun as it's much better.
Chances are low there are gunfights in my neighborhood too, so you take chances just because its less likely to happen? I am not risking my life on that.
that and i'm not bound by paranoia. i can reduce the chnaces of anyone trying to kill me by putting a bomb on a bus too. reduce the people, reduce the chance. or i can stop being omni-paranoid and me save in the knowledge that it is unlikely and if it does happen owning a gun would have probably not have helped.
by the time you find out someone is your house with a gun, it will probably be to late to do anything. you will either be dead or close to it.
The minute you find someone else in the house that isnt a reletive, i already will have my gun >_> Train yourself to be ready at the worst of times thats what you have to do.
and if he is unarmed? if he is some poor junkie kid just trying to get his next fix? shoot him for the cost of a vcr?
i agree, i would soner die then have the knowladge of having killed someone on my hands. their are other ways to protect yourself besides ways taht could kill others.
Then don't shoot. Christ, just because you have a damn gun doesn't make you shoot everything in sight. Which one of us is paranoid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I could probably a gun tomorrow for between £200 and £500. The sole difficulty would be in finding someone with one, because I'm not in the right circles for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
If you have a gun of your own.
That's not paranoia, that's called being trigger happy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
I agree with Hachifusa here. Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you have to use it. What's more, even if you use it, you don't have to kill someone.
Besides, the threat of a gun is usually enough to deter casual criminals. There are plenty of people out there to victimize who won't blow your head off at the first opportunity.
i mentioned earlier that thier are bullets with loser death rates, no? and you would aim to disarm not kill.
second... with todays tech you can have security cams in you house.. i saw one at wallmart really cheap.. all it does thou is view one door(u would need 1 for each door... that would add up) and let u know if some one comes within sight. easy to bypass from what i saw.. but it would improve your chances of seeing them first. also it is on your turf... u know where the creaky floors and such are at.. u know the ground word.. all this helps.
u can never negate all chances of danger, so u may as well negate it as much as you can.. and guns can help there.
"Besides, the threat of a gun is usually enough to deter casual criminals." that doesn't explain america's high crime rate compared to mine.
"The sole difficulty would be in finding someone with one, because I'm not in the right circles for it." that's the point. you probably couldn't get a gun. so if you became a nutter like thomas hamilton then the chances of you walking into a primary school and shooting folks is less.
"Then don't shoot. Christ, just because you have a damn gun doesn't make you shoot everything in sight." but the point you know a man is armed with a gun is the point where you have a great pain in your chest.
What type of crime are we talking about? Assault? US has a 7.56 per 1000 people stat, while UK is... 7.45 per 1000 people. Looks equally dangerous to me. Burglaries? UK: 13.83 per 1000 people, US: 7.09 per 1000 people. Looks like the idea of facing someone armed in his house is a good deterrent to burglars. Car theft? UK: 5.60 per 1000 people, US: 3.87 per 1000 people. Damn, the UK is worse again. Robberies? 1.57 per 1000 people in the UK, vs 1.38 per 1000 people in the US. Damn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
How many "nutter" cases are there really? Once evry other year, if not less? So what would be the impact of preventing normal people from owning a gun? Close to 0. Criminals on the other hand wouldn't have any problem at all. Plus, gun ban = more black market.Quote:
That's the point. you probably couldn't get a gun. so if you became a nutter like thomas hamilton then the chances of you walking into a primary school and shooting folks is less.
No, it shows your ignorance. First, a lot of gun owners make it very well known that they own a gun. I particularly like the old classic "this house is protected by Smith & Wesson" sign you put on your fence/door. Second, not all bullets are immediately lethal. Last, if I'm shooting at you, it means you entered my property, without my permission and threatened me. Tough sh*t for you if you get hurt. That's similar to insulting me or my wife/family/friends. My fist is going to meet your nose, and I won't feel sorry.Quote:
But the point you know a man is armed with a gun is the point where you have a great pain in your chest.
killing a man for trespass? i would rather live in iran. i would only get my hand chopped off for theft there. far better. and you would hit someone for insulting you? that just shows your level. "an eye for an eye" but it's not really it's a vcr for your pulse. and your lucky you are able to hold a gun with your lack of remorse for assualt.
you talk of normal people like they are segregated from nutters. thomas hamilton didn't have a word against him before he shot up a primary school. they aren't easy to spot. one day they just turn round and shoot someone. alot of murderers have no record before they end up killing someone.
"First, a lot of gun owners make it very well known that they own a gun." i was talking about the criminal.
"Criminals on the other hand wouldn't have any problem at all." they would. as soon as you fid a gun on them or their property you can get them put away for a while. no need to wait for them to injure someone or kill them.
No that just shows ignorance unless you dont value your lives and possessions. You think the person breaking in is going to care what level you are or if you are dead? Most probably not if they are already going to break in. This is a way different matter than someone insulting another. You are taking it out of scope. So are we to make a red carpet for people to come in whenever they please and take our stuff? Do you think the person next door will let you do the same? Hell no. When the crook comes in with a gun trying to steal your stuff and threaten your life, they arent going to care what level you are. You can be as high level as you want and be dead, but if you think thats better, then that is your decision and you have no right to judge the guy that wants to protect their things. Well you could but its not very reasonable.Quote:
killing a man for trespass? i would rather live in iran. i would only get my hand chopped off for theft there. far better. and you would hit someone for insulting you? that just shows your level. "an eye for an eye" but it's not really it's a vcr for your pulse. and your lucky you are able to hold a gun with your lack of remorse for assualt.
That shows nothing, so people HAVE to have commited other crimes to kill someone? They dont need track records when the deed is done. And where did you get these figures from anyway?Quote:
they aren't easy to spot. one day they just turn round and shoot someone. alot of murderers have no record before they end up killing someone.
And are you going to go up to the person intruding your house and ask "OMG DO YOU HAVE A GUN? IF YOU DO I MA GO GET MINE!ZZZZZZ111!one!" -_- The point is the person isnt supposed to be there in the first place, and the minute he steps in, he asked for it, and i have every right to defend everything in my property.
Your last paragraph also makes no sense..O_o
By any mean, go to Iran! Or China! The point is, you broke the law, you pay for it. I'm not going to watch you walk away with the things I worked to get because "it only costs so much". Since I could use money, you surely don't mind if I take some of your savings since you well, pretty much no way of defending yourself. You could call the cops, but honestly, would the cross the sea to get £50 back? Haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Also, it takes a whole lot to get me angry. If I hit you, you asked for it, really.
They are, and let me emphasize, the MINORITY. By far. For every 100,000 legal gun owner in the States, there is what? 1 that will go nuts every other year. So let's remove guns from the 99,999 that are perfectly sane because one of them might become crazy. And if he does, and doesn't have a gun, he'll use a knife, or an axe (props to Manchester City for that one). Did it solve anything? Nope.Quote:
you talk of normal people like they are segregated from nutters. thomas hamilton didn't have a word against him before he shot up a primary school. they aren't easy to spot. one day they just turn round and shoot someone. alot of murderers have no record before they end up killing someone.
NO. They wouldn't. Obviously, criminals break the law. Would they break it to get a gun too? Hell yes. How do you find a gun on their property? You need a suspiscion and a judge that believes you. Then you need to search for it and find it. Needless to say, if I was a criminal, I'd hide it in a place you wouldn't find. I'd still have my gun and no one would know about it. The only way you'll know someone has a gun, since you can't have a policeman watching everyone at all times, is when they use it. And since you won't be able to defend yourself when it happens...Quote:
"First, a lot of gun owners make it very well known that they own a gun." i was talking about the criminal.
"Criminals on the other hand wouldn't have any problem at all." they would. as soon as you fid a gun on them or their property you can get them put away for a while. no need to wait for them to injure someone or kill them.
Also, I forgot to link to my source last post.
Edit: I forgot to add that in the US, the highest crime rates are in metropolitan areas. Number one prolly still is Washington, D.C., which happens to have the toughest gun control laws of the US.
Oh sweet smurfing God above us, please hit yourself in the head really hard and try reading this thread again. Not one person here has said that death is a proportionate penalty for theft. As has been said repeatedly however, your house is not a court of law, it is your home. It is where you and your family live, it is where your most beloved possessions are, and it is in it's best form where you belong. It is not a court of a law, it is a situation where you are under attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Erm, wtf? He said that there were few enough cases of 'nutters' for their ability to acquire guns to be too small to outweigh the benefits of innocent, law-abiding citizens who like the idea of personal defense owning guns. You've completely missed, or ignored, what he was saying.Quote:
you talk of normal people like they are segregated from nutters. thomas hamilton didn't have a word against him before he shot up a primary school. they aren't easy to spot. one day they just turn round and shoot someone. alot of murderers have no record before they end up killing someone.
And incredibly enough, so was he. If you know someone has a gun, you're less likely to mess with them than if you think they might, and in turn those are less easy targets than those you know don't have guns.Quote:
"First, a lot of gun owners make it very well known that they own a gun." i was talking about the criminal.
Yes, because that's working so well right now, isn't it? There certainly isn't a black market for firearms in Britain, oh no, not at all.Quote:
"Criminals on the other hand wouldn't have any problem at all." they would. as soon as you fid a gun on them or their property you can get them put away for a while. no need to wait for them to injure someone or kill them.
Edit: Plus, would you support random stop-and-searches, or entering people's houses without due suspicion to search for firearms?
I just remembered seeing this picture so I searched and found it again. Enjoy.
you missed the point of that quote lionx. when i talked about his level it was about the fact that he would assualt someone for insulting him.
and my other point which you seem to misuderstand is that you can't stop "crooks" from getting weapons. because a lot of the time they weren't crooks before. you can prevent anyone with a record getting a gun legally. but they would just by one anyone on the black market which will exist with or without legislation but will be easier to find when guns are more prevelant in the country. but not all crooks have records. not all nutters who tomorrow are gonna shoot a guy in the street for "dissing him" have records. it prevents nothing.
"The point is, you broke the law, you pay for it." with vigilantism?
"If I hit you, you asked for it, really." noone "asks for it" i could call your mother every name under the sun but when you lay a hand on me for that you will be spending alot of time in jail. which is where the police come in handy and it is them that would get my money back from you or anyone else.
"You need a suspiscion and a judge that believes you." actually you don't. you can stop and search under the spotlight scheme used for deadly weapons. and to remove a man from the street for gun posession is far better than doing it for murder.
Let me find the page with the 1000+ insulting words. Since you won't budge, I might aswell release pressure on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And I daresay they were. Good luck finding stats supporting your view.Quote:
and my other point which you seem to misuderstand is that you can't stop "crooks" from getting weapons. because a lot of the time they weren't crooks before.
So let me get this straight. Gun control prevents nothing?Quote:
you can prevent anyone with a record getting a gun legally. but they would just by one anyone on the black market which will exist with or without legislation but will be easier to find when guns are more prevelant in the country. but not all crooks have records. not all nutters who tomorrow are gonna shoot a guy in the street for "dissing him" have records. it prevents nothing.
With protecting my damn life, dammit. I'm not gonna wait until I know if you are after me or my vcr to defend myself. Feel free to do so.Quote:
"The point is, you broke the law, you pay for it." with vigilantism?
The police wouldn't do jackQuote:
"If I hit you, you asked for it, really." noone "asks for it" i could call your mother every name under the sun but when you lay a hand on me for that you will be spending alot of time in jail.
about it.
xDQuote:
which is where the police come in handy and it is them that would get my money back from you or anyone else.
You're delusional. Someone stole your wallet? Good luck getting the money back. It'll never happen, they have much more important things to do than look for your £15.
Welcome to the Middle Age, when you can be arrested without a reason, just because you displeased the local officer.Quote:
"You need a suspiscion and a judge that believes you." actually you don't. you can stop and search under the spotlight scheme used for deadly weapons. and to remove a man from the street for gun posession is far better than doing it for murder.
actually the police take abh seriously.
go ahead endless bring out the book.
gun control doesn't totally prevent gun crime. it creates a crime which can stop another more serious crome before it happens. it's a bit like conspiracy. if we got rid of the conspiracy law the only time we could stop terrorists is after they've killed a few hundred people. same thing with guns. you may not get all the terrorists/crimnals with guns but you can get more than before.
the police actually spend quite a lot of their time doing their job and solving crimes and arresting people.
and stop and search isn't arrest. it's the same thing a bouncer would do outside a night club. they pat you down check your pockets and that's it. it's normally done if you have a protrusion form your jacket pokcet, have been IDed by somone or are acting suspiciously. i had it done in edinburgh last week. it's not the middle ages. vigilante violence and death for theft is the middle ages.
Lol i did, but what i said is still true :xQuote:
you missed the point of that quote lionx. when i talked about his level it was about the fact that he would assualt someone for insulting him.
Insults the word alone is too vague, many things can tick people off, and it might not just be ticking too. Try going up to Bush and shouting crap at him when he is at a speech, tell me he wouldnt get angry at least.
Seriously, no one can check every person that walks into a gun store to see if they are murderers or to-be murderers. Only those that did not have a crime to begin with. What are they going to do if no one has a crime? Suspect everybody that comes in? Be realistic. That, and if everyone was armed, the crooks might not be that crazy to do what they were going to do.Quote:
and my other point which you seem to misuderstand is that you can't stop "crooks" from getting weapons. because a lot of the time they weren't crooks before.
That and if gun control laws prevent nothing, why not arm ourselves up for more? Who knows when that next door guy is gonna blow me up? *tosses a grenade over*
I disagree, depending on the officer and the prejudices he might have things might turn out differently. That aside we can easily arrest you for battery if not also harassment and maybe even more charges for "pain and suffering". Depends how far you wanna push it but battery for sure.Quote:
The police wouldn't do jack
If everyone in this world can call the police and have them arrive immediately there to save their lives i am sure none of us would even care about owning a gun. So i am going to pay with my life should the police not arrive in time? Or the guy breaking in snaps and kills every hostage in the standoff?Quote:
with vigilantism?
How about someone off the street tries to rape you or mug you, are you just gonna stand there? Would fighting and trying to get him off you (gun or not on you) be called vigilantism? If it is, then i guess it must be ok for people to get raped and not fight back.
Uhuh, making criminals out of people who own something you don't like worked brilliantly with prostitution, prohibition, and drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Ah, here it is. Guys, this is why we're not getting through. He has absolute faith that the police are uncorrupt, unracist, and unbiased in their entirity, and he believes he was be sufficiently protected by them no matter the situation.Quote:
and stop and search isn't arrest. it's the same thing a bouncer would do outside a night club. they pat you down check your pockets and that's it. it's normally done if you have a protrusion form your jacket pokcet, have been IDed by somone or are acting suspiciously. i had it done in edinburgh last week. it's not the middle ages. vigilante violence and death for theft is the middle ages.
Cloud, I hope you never have cause to change that opinion, I really do.
I guess if it's a capitalist society, the government is corrupt beyond repair, but when it's a happy, secure society where all freedoms are abolished in the name of the people (such as gun laws) the government and all of its actions are completely uncorrupt and unbiased.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Don't make me laugh. What would they do because I punched you, and it left a bruise on your face? Put me in jail? Get real. After all, you (verbally) assaulted me beforehand. (Edit: isn't that "harassment" for you?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
It doesn't prevent much at all. And, since I actually have the stats for crime rates and the UK is worse than the US, why should other countries follow you when all I see is inefficience? I'm very sorry for the victims, but your cctvs didn't prevent the bombings in July. It helps to find who did it, but it doesn't stop it. It's an illusion of security, just like airport security measures.Quote:
gun control doesn't totally prevent gun crime. it creates a crime which can stop another more serious crome before it happens. it's a bit like conspiracy. if we got rid of the conspiracy law the only time we could stop terrorists is after they've killed a few hundred people. same thing with guns. you may not get all the terrorists/crimnals with guns but you can get more than before.
I still say they have better things to do than find your £15. Maybe they'll find the culprit if you had a chance to see him or had witnesses, but they won't go that far for this little.Quote:
the police actually spend quite a lot of their time doing their job and solving crimes and arresting people.
No it's not. In one case, they rightfully choose who they let in their private property. In the other case, I'm walking in the streets, in a public space. "acting suspiciously" is the generic reason to do a search on someone you don't like. It's bullsh*t 99% of the time. Cops used to do it on arabs and blacks in the 90s all the time here, just to be asses, because they had the power to. And you don't have your papers? One night in the police station's cell while they "background check" you. Didn't matter that you didn't do anything wrong, they just didn't like your face. Amusingly, it's gonna happen in the UK when they get the obligatory ID card law passed.Quote:
and stop and search isn't arrest. it's the same thing a bouncer would do outside a night club. they pat you down check your pockets and that's it. it's normally done if you have a protrusion form your jacket pokcet, have been IDed by somone or are acting suspiciously. i had it done in edinburgh last week. it's not the middle ages. vigilante violence and death for theft is the middle ages.
Edit: and it's not "death for theft" for chip's sake. It's protecting my life. As I said, I'm not going to wait until I know what you're after to defend myself and the other people in my house. Not gonna take the chance.
pffshhh you really think that if someone is able to illegaly purchase a gun they havent come up with a plan to kill you before you kill them.
if they are going to rob your house and know you have a gun they will come up with a way around it. you will be dead before you know that someone is in your house. thats what criminals do they find ways around problems. your woning a gun woulnt make a difference to them. they will take time to buy armour and automatic guns with armour piercing rounds. no matter what you do they will always have a way around it. so if everyone had a gun then they would know who to use their newfound tactics on.
also dont you think that if you owne3d a gun they would treat you as more of a threat? i mean if i was a criminal and new only one person on your street had a gun you would be my first target.
also go ahead and throw any name you want at me. only fools are stupid enough to get mad at baseless namecalling.
Its like you are saying that just to rile people up Fith. :rolleyes2
You are assuming way too much. How do you know all these things? Would every crimminal be a mastermind? Not everyone is one. Plus why would you rob the house with the greatest risk of you getting killed? Thats pretty dumb wouldnt it? I mean target the house that has greatest risk.
First these are pretty expensive. Most robbers in arrests use cheap guns because they are cheap and easily disposable so they can get a new gun for another crime. Second the availibility of armor piercing rounds are kinda rare these days with ammo bans, only way you can have any is that you have some before the ban, and ammo is not cheap for those kinds of bullets.Quote:
your woning a gun woulnt make a difference to them. they will take time to buy armour and automatic guns with armour piercing rounds.
There will always be newfound tactics, however not everyone is going to adapt the same way, and there will also be new tactics for you as well as time evolves.
i want the best defence of all against people. a suicide bomb belt. when i feel threatened i can just push down on the button and good night vienna.
and the police are just as corrupt as you or i. or anyone else with a gun. law should not be in the hands of those it is there to protect.
and endless abh carries a prison sentence. but for a first time you might look at a warning or community service.
"It helps to find who did it, but it doesn't stop it." this is the point. removing the tools of murder is more effecient than catching the murderer. murders which america has more of in america (also with firearms) per capita. because death is far easier to deal out.
u know armor only stops the puncture right?
the guns i look at focus more on slamming power rather then piercing. doesn't matter if it doesn't go thru, if it hits hard enough to break a bone or too without the need to punture.
though i don't know many guns with that much power it still holds.. if one hit knocks u back a foot or two u likely won't be able to accurately shoot right afterwards.. and if u don't drop it(which i woulda said by then) then i adjust aim and hit where the armor doesn't cover.
and if it entirely covers u and u are a guy.. a couple shoots to ur extremities would still put u down easily.
add- head and seen guns capable of easily able to knock large men backwards and leaving brusies throug armor... i am sure one was a handgun.
remember i am advocating hard hitting gunds not the expanding deadlier piercing ones. platemail could block arrows... but a mace could still put a knight out cold.
While I'm too lazy to read all the posts stuck up there since my last contribution, I would like to comment on a situation brought up by one of these nice, civic minded people: specifically, the problem of someone bringing a gun into a public area and shooting everything in sight. Again, I point to the solution: someone with wits and a gun could put a bullet into the crazy person fairly easily. Someone randomly shooting people makes a very nice target, they tend to stand there straight up and down just like those cardboard targets they have at firing ranges. While you could quite easily duck down, aim a quick shot, and put them out of commission before they hurt too many people. Of course, this requires that you carry a gun. I suppose you could try spraying him with mace, or attacking him with a knife, but I wouldn't suggest it.
Oh, and I believe I heard Cloud No.9 mention that he'd rather live in Iran where he would only get his hand chopped off for stealing? Now I understand where you're coming from. Cloud No.9 is a criminal. That makes perfect sense now. Why else would he want to deprive people of the ability to defend themselves? Of course, he proved my point. A criminal would prefer to go somewhere where people are less likely to kill him for his crimes. End result: fewer criminals, lower crime rate. Guns deter criminals. Thanks for the support, Cloud No.9!
if i were a criminal i would always take out the threat first. after the gun owner is gone the rest are easy pickings. now i know not all criminals would think like tactical genuses. but the ones i worry about do.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
also, in regards to the post above mine, thats what security guards and police officers are for, to stop people from doing that.
Actually, I think the tactical genius criminal would be scoping out the targets where he's not going to get shot at all because they don't have a gun. More probably, the tactical genius criminal will be pulling off far more impressive and profitable crimes than simply thuggish theft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Indeed. And if we had about, oh, three security guards/police per person, it might even work. Do you have police sitting around your house all day? Well, guess what? I can't afford to hire round the clock security. But I can afford a gun, and it seems to work just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Oh, yes, and this isn't tactical genius, this is either extreme stupidity or a major logical fallacy. The others will be easy pickings anyway. The gun owner is protecting his own stuff. It's not like he can protect everyone at once. All you'd be doing is sticking your neck out in an attempt to set off a trap. Basically you'd do nothing but come up with a good chance of getting yourself killed. It wouldn't alter the opportunities elsewhere at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Agreed, i would think(and most people would too) that you be a total retard to break into the house with the MOST resistance. You want money, you want goods, and unless its a home invasion theres no need for you to face anyone. That, and how the hell do you know anyone has a gun? Unless you were going to rob a close friend.
That and if police and guards are there to prevent that, we wouldnt have any problems at all if we could count on them for everything.
Agreed.Quote:
Oh, yes, and this isn't tactical genius, this is either extreme stupidity or a major logical fallacy. The others will be easy pickings anyway. The gun owner is protecting his own stuff. It's not like he can protect everyone at once. All you'd be doing is sticking your neck out in an attempt to set off a trap. Basically you'd do nothing but come up with a good chance of getting yourself killed. It wouldn't alter the opportunities elsewhere at all.
so what kind of high tech security system do you have that will let you know someone is breaking into your house while you are sleeping. whats going to wake you up? if you had a gun, and i knew this i would want to turn the ambush on you. if i dont then that gives you time to ambush me.
and seriously people their are more ways to protect yourself then with guns. non-lethal ways
(directed to everyone but ShunNakamura due to his non piercing bullets.)
yes skyblade i am a criminal. i just want to shoot everyone. i did it yesterday too. tomorrow i'll be placing bombs in new york. because i'm a low down dirty criminal me. oh yes that's true.
A utopian society doesn't require firearms to be sold, so why bother. Take an example of UK, even police doesn't carry weapons there. So why on earth would you need a pistol, unless every jerk from the other side of the road can get one in a supermarket. Legal gun sales increase the criminality rate, so I think it'd be better to leave our security to the responsible authorities.
One time, a guy escaped a looney bin from Ohio, made it to my house in Chisago City, MN. The cops were detainging him and BANG! The man got one of thier guns and blew cops hand off... right in my living room.
I come home the next day and my dad was cleaning up blood that was puddled and splattered all over the place. The next day we were zerged by news crews.
See - guns can get you on tv! I do not think that cops should carry guns on them at all times. Too accessable. I do think its a bad idea to carry guns all over with ya. I do think you should be able to have them for sports, and or private resedential use.
Bipper
btw here is proof:http://www.ecmpostreview.com/2002/june/13officer.html
And as I posted before, crime rates in the UK are often worse than in the US, burglaries in particular, since lately we've been talking about protecting our home.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxGrin
also most criminals don't buy guns at stores. its too easy to trace the weopon. they buy their guns black market style. so having guns sold in stores doesn't contribute to gun crimes.
Trust me, most criminals aren't as bright as you think and don't actually kill anyone. Its just enough to point the gun at someone to make him understand your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by YukiKiro
and most criminals that do that usually use something else since they have no inclination to kill anyone. there was a robbery around here recently and the store was robbed with a bee bee gun made to look like a semi auto. the really psychotic and mentally unstable may use a real gun, but they leave a trail so large they might as well have tried to steal the empire state building and drag it down the street, so they normally don't stay on the street for too long. either that or they OD on something and die. drug money is sometimes what its all about.
And how does this differ in any way from NOT having a gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Yes, and are these ways A) Affordable to everyone B) Easy used by everyone C) Able to level the playing field between a single victim and multiple attackers, or between a healthy and strong individual against a frail, weak, or unhealthy one?Quote:
and seriously people their are more ways to protect yourself then with guns. non-lethal ways
1) i dont understand your first question.
2)yes
Of course you don't understand. If you did, you wouldn't be working to commit the stupidest crimes in the world. Still, if you want to take out the biggest threat first go rob the Federal Reserve. Of course, would robbing that change your odds of successfully robbing my house? Nope, not at all. The principle holds the same. I wish more people like you were criminals, because we'd have a lot fewer of them (they wouldn't last that long).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Besides, as I've said before, guns are not always lethal. Even if they did always kill, I quite frankly wouldn't give a damn. You want to survive, you shouldn't break into my house.
amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
"also most criminals don't buy guns at stores. its too easy to trace the weopon. they buy their guns black market style. so having guns sold in stores doesn't contribute to gun crimes." the end users of the guns may not use stores but at the start it probably had to come from there anyway.
my comments were directed at im my own milf, not you. i understood everything you said and could see no reason to even allow you to have a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
any good stratigist knows never to leave an enemy at your back, not killing the guy with the gun is leaving a potential threat to get cought by.
also i must insist that their are better ways to defend yourself. anyone who thinks that a gun is the only way to defend yourself from threat is way to to inside the box.
this is true. most of the time the guns are stollen and then sold in that case. however places that sell firearms are under heavy survellance and the person or persons responsible for the theft are usually brought to justice. and i don't think anyone would be stupid enough to try and rob a firearms dealer durring open hours. think about it, hundreds of firearms and about as many sportsmen, or one very trigger happy counter clerk, its safer to rob by night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
If I understood him correctly, what Im my own MILF was saying was that without the security system to wake you up, it wouldn't matter if you had a gun or not. The gun just helps for those times that you are prepared to defend yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Boy, you are on a big "be nice to the person breaking into your house and trying to take all your stuff" kick, aren't you? You don't want me to have a gun? Come break into my house, take it, and see how well your master plan works.
While what you are discussing may be logical in a military situation with limited forces at your disposal, anywhere else it is sheer lunacy. You are not at war with every single person in the world. Killing the gun owners would change nothing. It's not like the gun owners are going to come hunting you down while you are off robbing their neighbors. Just ignore the gun owners. There are enough people to rob who aren't gun owners that if you successfully robbed them, you could retire rich and happy forever. I mean, just how paranoid, insane, and trigger happy are you? Also, I hope you have a lot of practice with that gun. At least attacking non gun owners first you'd get used to your weapon in a situation where you need it to save your @$$.
What you're suggesting is fascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
yuki kiro all weapons that are on the market have been sold legitimately at one point. either by the maker, store owner or someone else (unless the gun was stolen from the factory). at one point down this line one of these places may get robbed and the guns go on the black market.
but if you cut down the amount of people able to buy guns then you reduce the need for factories. so people have less chance of stealing from them. there are no stores to rob. so the only place left to get a gun from is imported. in doing this you have limited from where illegal guns can come from and just made the whole thing alot harder. now break smuggling and we have ourself a gun free country.
i belive we are going after two different theoretical situations here. i was referring to a mass crime spree, or a neighborhood were everyone trys to help each other as best they can. what you are reffering to is a neighborhood were people dont seem to care what goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
also i am starting to think you think robberys only happen during the day. based on your "if i have gun ill be fine because ill have a chance to use it first" kick. the majority of robberys i hear about happen while your asleep, so unless you have a wierd subconcious about you that can shoot youe gun for you i dont think you will be any safer than the rest of us. so why get a gun? chances are it woulnt do you any good.
and yes, i value the life of a person (even one robbing me) than i value the cost of a few trinkets in my house. as long as they are alive they still have the ability to change.
i understood you until you got to this part. right now there are tons of people in america loosing jobs, and firearms are still a legal recreation, and you're talking about shutting down factories that produce jobs and help keep us going. we have enough problems with outsourcing, the last thing we need is 2 million more people losing jobs. and besides, importing guns through the black market can be like buying a bag of potato chips at the corner store. at that point robberies would skyrocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
so keep firearms because they are good for the economy?
i didn't get your second part.
keep them because they help the economy and people who want them for recreation and protection can still get them. criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what you do, so give the public the weopon of the enemy to either defend, or hunt, or whatever, so long as the use is lawful.
That sounds very beautiful, but I think that's immoral as all hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
"criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what you do" but you can reduce the risks and chances.
That is true, but you can't take away the rights from all because of the actions of a few. That's like making an entire class write an essay because a single student spoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
you see, this is why i don't really like debating this stuff. you go over the same facts over and over again, you produce the same point, which produces a counter point, then you produce a counter point and another counter point is presented your original point would pretty much have covered (i hope you all caught that). its like talking to a machine with a bunch of preset phrases programmed to be spit out if one thing is said. i give up. you guys can go on talking about why guns are bad (when they don't kill people, people with guns kill people); i am simply tired of this.
how do you figure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
I value life, too, but I value (necessarily) my own life more than another. If a man is willing to steal a few "trinkets" (for example, my stereo, television, car, etc.) I don't think he's valuing life much at all, and likewise I certainly don't value his life and put it above my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Err. You do realize that whatever regulations your country has, gun makers outside of your country don't give a damn? Better yet, what if some gun makers (*cough*EasternCountries*cough*) knew very well their weapons are used in the end for black market reselling and won't do anything about it? The only way it would work is if all the countries on Earth agreed to pass the same laws and have them in effect at the same time. chances of that happening? 0. Effect of a gun ban in a given country on the number of weapons on the black market? 0.
Actually, the situation you are discussing would never come up. Even if there was a nice happy community where everyone helped each other (and, given our current society, whose situation do you really think is more likely?), chances are you could rob a house and be gone before the neighbors even knew you were there. I suppose if you were attempting to rob a utopian city of psychics your plan might be a good idea. Otherwise, it's just stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
I'd rather have a gun and no opportunity to use it than not have it and need it.
Why would the person change when they can keep stealing from dumb@$$es like you? I'm the one who is giving them a good reason to change their ways: if they continue on their current path, they'll wind up with a bullet in their head. My arguement is a lot more convincing than a "take everything I own, but please don't do it again".
i dont recall saying i have no defences in my house. i just said i wouldnt support common gun use.
[quote]I value life, too, but I value (necessarily) my own life more than another. If a man is willing to steal a few "trinkets" (for example, my stereo, television, car, etc.) I don't think he's valuing life much at all, and likewise I certainly don't value his life and put it above my own.[quote]
acully, he is valuing his life. in the most common case people who are stealing are doing so to support themself for lack of money/food/whatever.
by the way, how old are you Skyblade?
The meaning is that if the person went into a gunowner's home and KNOWs he has a gun..then very well damn he doesnt value his own life. Anyone that breaks into a home goes in with the risk that there might be dire consquences.
But he does so at another's expense, which isn't much of a value for life in general. Considering that he could get those objects honestly, I don't have much pity for him. He (the criminal) disrespects all life (and mine most of all); I don't feel bad shooting the man who enters my house and lays claim on my life and its products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
He's the one who's posting in lengthy sentences with good grammar and capitalized letters. I'm willing to wager you will lose where you are going with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
So you only support ineffective, or at best questionably effective, means for self-defense?Quote:
i dont recall saying i have no defences in my house. i just said i wouldnt support common gun use.
Why not support gun use? You prefer your defenses to guns. That's fine. That doesn't give you a right to say what I use to defend my house. I find a gun generally does the job, and it is cheaper and more efficient than mace, electric fences, cameras, digital security systems, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Actually, if the people need a TV, stereo, or my mother's jewelry collection to live, I figure they're beyond help anyway. Besides, haven't they heard of asking? Not once has someone come up to me and said "Do you have any spare home entertainment systems or jewelry that you could donate to a person in need?" I'm not a total insensitive @$$hole (ok, I probably am). I would at least consider such a request.
It's impolite to ask that of a lady. Now, one might argue that I'm not a lady. This is true, but I also do not believe in some forms of gender discrimination. If ladies don't have to give out their age, then men shouldn't have to either. Of course, this is a totally ridiculous coverup for the simple fact that I am not going to tell you. For one thing, I don't like giving out personal information over the Internet (which is why my location is given as "Earth, approximately"). But what's more, it doesn't change the validity of my arguments at all. Just because logic fails you doesn't mean I'm going to help you pass your ridiculous claims off by giving you the ability to make comments such as "he's so old he's senile", or "he's too young and stupid to know what he's talking about". If you can't actually win arguments without turning this into an attempt at character assassination, you should give up now. I'm certainly not going to help you in such a pursuit.
Skyblade's nine, what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
...Ok... While your post in and of itself could be a coherent thought, coupled with the quote it makes practically no sense to me. Would you be so kind as to clarify that, my good sir?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
You're nine years old.
And, out of curiousity, how did that single line that you quoted clue you in to that fact?
Drop your damn defenses. I was playing around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
No, I'm just really curious why you chose to quote that single line...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
You've completely ruined whatever humor I found in saying this and then some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
Because it led nicely into what I said, I guess.
ok, i dont really care if you give me you age. i was just wondering if perhaps you were reacting to societys perspectives.
here is my problem with your argument. in your argument you are saying that you buy your gun Specificaly to use on other people. circumstances asied this is what im getting at. while thy are alive they have the ability to change.
now if you had said something like "i use my gun for hunting" then, well i would still have a problem with it, but people need food and hunters need permits and training and stuff before they can go hunting.
but no, you choose to argue by saying that you will use the gun against people. for your defence yes, but still against people.
alternate forms of protection are just as effective as a gun, if not more effective. your problem with them (im assuming) is that what you think of is pepper spray which you need to be almost shaking hands to use. i agree that this would not usualy work, but this is also not what im talking about.
the fact that you reacted so angrily to my question suggests to me that you are insacure about your age. i can understand not giving out personal info about yoursel but you went mad which suggests to me that even you think you are not at a proper age to argue this. let alone own a gun.
so if a robber can get in and out of houses before the person wakes up, what good is the gun going to do you? and unless you sleep with it under your pillow (unsafe) by the time you would find out it would be to late to do anything.Quote:
Actually, the situation you are discussing would never come up. Even if there was a nice happy community where everyone helped each other (and, given our current society, whose situation do you really think is more likely?), chances are you could rob a house and be gone before the neighbors even knew you were there. I suppose if you were attempting to rob a utopian city of psychics your plan might be a good idea. Otherwise, it's just stupid
also whats with your constant swearing (profanity) and otherwise assultive behavior. its things like that that makes me feel unsafe when you have a gun.
p.s.my grammer and punctuation is fine. the same can't be said about my spelling. "me fail englilish, thats unpossible."Quote:
He's the one who's posting in lengthy sentences with good grammar and capitalized letters. I'm willing to wager you will lose where you are going with this.
p.s.s i also feel strongly against gender discrimination. i can wholeheartedly agree with you there.
I'm glad you don't mind if I don't give you my age, because I'm not going to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Well, as fun as it would be to use it on myself, I eventually decided it wouldn't be best to use it that way.
Hunting is a reason to have a gun, but self-defence is a perfectly acceptable reason as well.
While I am open to your suggestions as to what defensive mechanisms you would employ, I still have yet to see a single logical arguement as to why I shouldn't be allowed to use a gun. I know how to use firearms (I am in fact extremely good with them), and they are far better for personal defence than say archery or fencing (which I am also trained in).
Oh, and that wasn't me angry, that was me amused. I wasn't offended by your question, I was just wondering why you were asking it, since it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. As I said, it seemed to indicate that you are starting a character battle with me personally (which it still seems you are doing, in fact, this time by pointing out my [nonexistant] anger), rather than actually responding to my points.
As for my profanity, well, I call them as I see them. You may be a great person, but you are either dumber than a rock or one of the most naive people I have ever met.
Oh, and while I don't sleep with it under my pillow, I do keep it at hand at all times. There are plenty of safe places you can put it where it is still easy to access. Also, I didn't say you would get out of there before the person woke up, I said you would get out of there before the neighbors knew. Unless they can communicate by telepathy, it will probably not be easy to send an SOS.
Also, while your grammar may be decent enough, he did mention "capital letters".
it is obvious that we are wasting our time. i dont like guns, you do. no amount of arguing is going to change that. if i get robbed or killed, lesson learned for me. if the whole world owns a gun and gets "an eye for an eye" mentality lesson learned for us all. if your gun fails to save your life where something else could have, lesson learned for you. i am willing to set aside difference's for the time being and who knows, maybe someday we will meet and become friends. i still do not think people shoud have a gun, mostly because i am naive and belive there is still good in everyone. but i cant influence people in this manner anymore than anyone else can. I hope that the use of a gun is never necessary for you, but if it becomes necesary for you to live, i can accept that when its a choice between your life and a robber you have the "greater" right to life at the moment. i still dont like it, but i can learn to live with it. i hope you never have to use it. but we must do what we feel is right at every moment of our lives.
you fence? me to. cool, i didnt think many people still fenced.
ohh... im getting off topic, anyways i feel it is a waste of time to continue to argue this. you know my standpoint, and i know yours. so good luck to you.
Yes, you have made your position quite clear. Actually, I somewhat agree. Do not mistake my intentions. It is not that I enjoy blowing people away (Mwa ha ha ha ha!!!), but simply that it can be necessary and it is extremely efficient. I hope that I never have to use one either. I hope that if I do have to use one, I don't have to kill someone with it. But that doesn't mean I will hesitate to kill someone if the situation calls for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
(You're right, fencing isn't the most popular sport. I'm not sure why, because it is awesome as hell.)
this thread has had a (semi) good long life. if you want to discuss guns, make a new thread.
